Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

its almost like you don't understand the difference between a communicable disease and an abortion.

so its ok to have an abortion if step one and two don't work?

Thaaaat’s, not quite what happened either. This is what the SC actually decided -

Writing for the court majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the school relied exclusively and improperly on concerns that the prayers would be viewed as a religious endorsement by the school. Without evidence that students had been coerced, the majority said, barring coach Joseph Kennedy from praying on the 50-yard line at the end of each game was a form of hostility to religion, in violation of the Constitution.

"Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic. Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a personal religious observance, based on a mistaken view that it has a duty to suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. Mr. Kennedy is entitled to summary judgment on his religious exercise and free speech claims," Gorsuch wrote.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/27/1106290141/supreme-court-high-school-coach-right-to-pray?t=1656363989009

Sure we had a poster earlier claiming there is no real cost associated with a baby until it is born.

It would depend upon what you mean by what real costs you associate with a baby before it’s born. If, for example, you mean responsibility for providing for a baby when they’re born, then that responsibility is on both parents. If you mean before a baby is born, but a person chooses of their own volition to have an abortion, then there is a cost to that too, but nothing in comparison to the costs associated with raising a child.

Seems there is a consistent and unsurprising theme from those who are happy about the supreme court decision that they dont understand the basics about women or babies.

That claim seems to be a consistent theme among those people who are unhappy with the Supreme Court decision, that anyone who doesn’t share their opinions doesn’t understand the basics about women and babies. It’s not borne out by reality however, a reality they choose to either flat-out deny, or outright ignore, given that many people among the pro-life movement are women, and women with children, and women who have had abortions.

It’s really not that difficult to understand the basics once you get past looking over your glasses at people who don’t share your own personal feelings regarding abortion, or why they might be opposed to it, or why they came up with the idea of ‘pro-life’ in the first place. It might help your understanding, to be familiar with the origins of the term, long before Roe v Wade, and not specifically referring to abortion either, although it was always in opposition to abortion -

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term “pro-life” was first introduced to modern language in 1960 by A. S. Neill in his book Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Childrearing(p.138), which promoted progressive parenting and citizen attitudes. Neill wrote, “no pro-life citizen would tolerate our penal code, our hangings, our punishments of homosexuals, our attitude towards bastardy.”

By the late 1960s, anti-abortion started to latch on to the “life” framing: the Right to Life League was founded in 1967 in California and the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life was launched in 1968. But it didn’t quite mean what it does today; in progressive circles at the time, you could be “pro-life” by being both anti-abortion and anti-war. “To be pro-life you have to be for all life,” said Sue Bastyr, a 21-year-old student from the University of Minnesota, to the Chicago Tribune in 1971.

Then, in Jan. 1973, the Supreme Court wrote the landmark Roe v. Wade decision declaring American women have the right to choose to have an abortion. In response, anti-abortion groups began to mobilize rapidly. Part of their move towards organizing was deciding on what to call themselves; “pro-life” was chosen by movement leaders to put forth a positive image. The same month Roe v. Wade was decided, the first iteration of the Human Life Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw abortions, was introduced in congress.

It was a marketing masterstroke: the word “life” has been linked to the opposition of abortion since, and being “pro-life” has come to mean specifically opposing abortion—and not, for instance, opposing war or the death penalty. The success of the label is largely due to its ability to frame the issue not as standing against something (a woman’s choice) but in favor of it (life).

It has been so successful, in fact, that the opposition party was forced to adapt directly to it: the label “pro-choice” was created specifically to counter “pro-life.”

https://qz.com/896566/where-does-the-term-pro-life-come-from/amp/

As history goes in relation to Roe v Wade, the woman and the unborn child who were at the centre of the case, she never did have an abortion, and the child is an adult today, who does not care to offer an opinion on abortion -

Shelley had long considered abortion wrong, but her connection to Roe had led her to reexamine the issue. It now seemed to her that abortion law ought to be free of the influences of religion and politics. Religious certitude left her uncomfortable. And, she reflected, “I guess I don’t understand why it’s a government concern.” It had upset her that the Enquirerhad described her as pro-life, a term that connoted, in her mind, “a bunch of religious fanatics going around and doing protests.” But neither did she embrace the term pro-choice: Norma was pro-choice, and it seemed to Shelley that to have an abortion would render her no different than Norma. Shelley determined that she would have the baby. Abortion, she said, was “not part of who I was.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/jane-roe-v-wade-baby-norma-mccorvey/620009/

It’s rather unfortunate, but understandable, that it is you who doesn’t understand people, instead choosing to categorise people in political terms that ignores the reality and the complexity of each individual human being. You’re actually closer to the people you want to dismiss, than you think, with your politics being fundamentally identical in it’s simplistic attitudes towards other people who don’t share your opinions -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_against_us

It's almost like you don't understand how comparisons work.

No, I was aware of all that. Making a big deal out of it was a surefire way for it to get to this SC test and on balance that looked a lot more like a First Amendment issue however distasteful some people find it. I'm not surprised at the outcome. Some less knee jerk and a better thought out approach would have resolved this quietly.

Until the next round of elections where the GQP take over the Congress and the POTUS. Then, the law goes away. This is why the Roe decision was so powerful and why leaving this up to the States didn't work. Remember at one point 1/2 the States allowed Slavery. It took a war and a few Constitutional amendments to end it.

Either another legal decision or an amendment is where things are at. The SCOTUS has pretty much said any prior SCOTUS decision is fair game, including this one.

The whole abortion = anti vax/anti mask was only used by eejits to try and excuse the illogical crap they were dribbling out.

Quite surprised to see that argument escape the relaxation of restrictions thread lol.

They are relatively cheap when compared to other forms of contraceptives. Especially as they last forever and don't need topping up while other methods are cheaper initially they add up over time. Especially stuff like the pill which you really need to keep up even if you are having a dry spell. Planned Parenthood may also charge less depending on your income.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/vasectomy/how-do-i-get-vasectomy

Pregnancy isn't contagious is the main one.

But I'm sure some pro lifers/anti maskers think it is.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. It will need to be argued very carefully though.